Whos deer are they???

pw,

I agree. We have the same problem here in KS, and it all goes back to the implementation of the very first farm bill in the 1980's. I can still recall how giddy my wildlife management professors were at the prospect of millions of acres of fedrally subsidized wildlife habitat at no cost to the state.

At first, Kansas landowners were all about the supposed deer damage to their crops. Then, all their concerns went out the window when they realized they could lease their ground and sell rights to access those same problematic deer to make a profit. Now, you can take a tract of ground that the owner, ten years ago, was adamant would have provided a dozen or more hunters with all the deer they can kill and then some, then complain that the problem still won't be handled. That same guy now leases it out to one guy so he and his two sons can hunt it, reducing the harvest of his overgrown to a third or less of what he insisted it could support back when he was complaining.

Also, to show you how sincere the Kansas landowners were about their "problem", the state began a damage volunteer program where people that are willing to go out at any time and shoot deer that are causing a problem can sign up. At last check, this three-+ year old program has yet to receive even one call from a landowner who really needed help. And yes, lease hunting will detroy hunting in IA the same way it's killing it in KS and elsewhere. I guess I'm safe until those guys find out how much fun it is to call coyotes. I'll take a charging coyote over a stinkin' ol' deer any day.
 
I would recommend selling enough hunts or leasing your property to a group of hunters for enough money to offset the damage that the deer do. If the deer cost you a thousand, lease your hunting rights out for $2000, and now the deer are a viable crop and are making you money instead of costing you money.
 
I wasnt trying to say the deer were mine but that i feed them like the were. If it were $1000 in my crop ground it is the same for everyone that borders.

I dont think that they should be able to tell me that i cant take a deer on my property when i would like a deer for the freezer. i hate people that waste them and would never think of it but the idnr need to find a way to control them and quick. Things have went from it almost making the paper if you say a deer to being like stink on dog poop you dont say anything its just there.
I dont feel that its right either for a person to lease there hunting rights to people that will cause more problems in the long run than that lease will ever be worth
 
If you don't want to deal with hunters and leases, thats understandable. But that is a solution that seems to be working elsewhere in the country. Both east and west. Texas to Wyoming and Montana. But it doesn't seem that you are really looking for a solution except that you think you should be able to shoot them whenever you want. It looks to me like your only option is to high fence your property and lock it up. Then you don't have to deal with hunters or deer as soon as you get them all shot out of your property.
 
Isnt Iowa in the top 10 B&C states? Plant clover instead of whatever you are farming and sell hunts

Happening in Texas. Many have all but bailed out of the cattle business to go to deer. When they can go for 5 times as much as cattle and eat less I can see why.
 
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gifOne of my neighbors who owns adjoining property had applied for "Crop Damage" Permits for the last 3 years. The first year he had them "filled" all 25 of his permits. THe next year he "filled" around 20 permits. This past year he only had 5 permits to start with, but he was shooting for 3 to 4 week almost every evening and only sent in 2 permit tags. He would have this guy from down the road come and shoot them for him. The funny thing is that the same guy has been arrested for spotlighting out of the same fields many years before (same landowner then). The problem with this whole thing is that the DNR told my neighbor where he was supposed to shoot the deer, inside of his goat fence (which goes around a majority of his property). However he was shooting them when they stepped from the tree line on our property to walk into his field. I found a few small deers on us just inside the tree line, shot in the head (They probably ran a long way before they died). The "crop" that he was claiming damage on was fields that flood when the creek gets up coating all of his hay with mud. Last year he never put one bail up, he brush hogged it all summer. Also he claimed that the deer was giving his goat hoof and mouth.

The bad thing about this is that he starts to shoot them with a gun during Bow season. He is only supposed to shoot does, but they have shoot a few good sized bucks, then claim they shot it with a bow. The funny thing is the guy that claims he shot it with a bow, is on "permanent disablity" with back troubles. Alot of the people in the neighborhood called the DNR to complain. We were able to get the DNR out to investigate and they pulled his permits. They took them because he was not shooting where the DNR told him, he was shooting out of the fields from a cattle trailer parked along the road (about 15 yrds from the road).

I think that crop damage permits have their place but alot of times they are abused, the farmer thinks they give him the right to shoot any deer he sees. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/angry-smiley-055.gif
 
If you have a high population of deer, you should have no problem finding hunters to harvest them if the deer stay on your property.

If you don't want to lease the property, place a few ads in the local newspapers that you have land available to hunt on and then decide how many you will limit it to.
Either the deer will be shot, or they will get educated to the fact that your land is not a good place to step foot on.

The part that is getting the hardest to deal with for many farmers id the liability issue. In Minnesota, if they let a hunter on their property and the hunter is injured in some way, the hunter can take the landowner to court and recover the cost of the injury. That crap need to stop.
 
On the subject of taking animals on your property, I have always felt that if you take an animal for food, that I find no problem with that. Many people who have land and are getting taxed more and more for it each year are getting stressed financially just trying to keep the land they have and I see no ethical problem with them harvesting a deer or other animal for their own consumption. I do have a problem with anyone who shoots a deer with or without a permit and lets it go to waste.
 
denjahn,

Just a bit of correction. There's a law on the books in Minnesota that protects the landowner from such lawsuits unless the landowner is negligent in his or her actions. So, if I break my leg going over a fence, I can't sue the farmer.

Randy
 
Wish it were that way in Texas, Buker. Seems as if attorneys and people looking for a quick buck have made it to where many landowners are very leary in letting you access thier land due to the liability concerns. Most paid lease agreements have a liability waiver included (or at least they should), but as far as your good old knock on the front door and get verbal permission goes, many are scared. I can understand their reasoning, too. Sad, but true.

Take care and God Bless,

Rusty
 
I think that the law has some gray areas to it though, especially for a lawyer who has a new pool to pay for. One example would be that if you break your leg going over that fence and the fence was not in good repair, then they would have the potential to use negligence as you did not properly maintain it. Same way with walking through a field and stepping in a hole and breaking your ankle.Now you and I both know that hole in a field are a part of nature, but The right "victim" and the right lawyer and they could still come up with something that isn't quite right that you have done. And just the thought of the potential for some schmuk to try it, even if the landowner would win, is enough reason for some people to just say no.
 
You are mostly right. Even though the fence in ill repair or the hole in the field would never make a lawsuit that would win, that's not to say the lawyers wouldn't be willing to file a suit on behalf of the idiot who crossed the fence or fell in a hole. The bad part is the farmer would have to defend himself. The good part is that he's not going to lose the farm over it.

People are still good here in Minnesota though. I can get on by knocking on doors and being polite for anything other than deer. That's a tough one!
 
Nobody is immune to lawsuits unless you are absolutely penniless. Anybody else can be sued at anytime for anything. However, lawyers are trying to make money so will not normally pursue loosing cases. They may put a little effort into a case that is in the 10-20% win area but not much.

I highly recommend an umbrella liability policy at about half of your net worth. Then the insurance company has to fight any suit against you.

Jack
 
I agree that we still have a darn good state in regards to finding people willing to let us hunt on their land, but I wonder how long that will last. The sizes of farms in my area are getting bigger every year through consolidation and many times the landowner now may be 10-30 or more miles from the farm from what I am seeing. That coupled with the fact that while 10 years ago it was nearly impossible for a farmer to sell land that was too wet to farm, now they are able to get as much or more from the land selling it to people from the Metro who buy it to hunt on.Even the dept of revenue knows it now because My uncles wetland that he was paying 25 dollars an acre per year for in taxes now went up to 400.

And what you said was exactly right and what I was trying to get across, even though you may not lose a case from someone trying to scam you, it is still time consuming and expensive to defend yourself and for some that is enough reason to just say no.
 
"My uncles wetland that he was paying 25 dollars an acre per year for in taxes now went up to 400."

You've got to be kidding....$400/acre/year for land taxes... Holly mackeral... who the heck can afford any land at that price? I only pay about $4.50/acre/year for my land in KS.
 
Before I stand by that number I am going to call him and verify it to make sure that the number was correct.It may have been for the plot. I don't want to put out false info and that is the number I remember. I will talk to him tomorrow and make sure I am remembering correctly. One way or the other, I do know that the rates have increased dramatically.
 
About liability, many of the lease forms I've seen have the language "even in the event of gross negligence of behalf of Lessor".

That pretty much solves the rickety fence problem...and ANY other problem you might run into while on their property. It's pretty much saying that anything you run into on their property, even if it is a result of the landowner's gross negligence, it's still your problem to deal with and you release the landowner from any liablity whatsoever.

I thought the "gross negligence" part was unfair at first, but seeing how attorneys can twist and turn a normal situation like a fence with a weak spot in it or a large pot-hole on an old ranch road into a situation of "gross negligence" on behalf of the landowner, I realized/understood why they put such strong language in the lease.

Take care and God Bless,
 
Back
Top